On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:20:49 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 27/02/2014 16:50, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:33:32 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

If the electricity supplier cut down all the trees that could hit
the lines if they fell,

How much extra would you be willing to pay for your electricity to
achieve that level of maintenance?

Nothing - because they do that now.

We've just had about a dozen trees removed by Western Power - free of
charge to us - because their proximity to lines posed a risk. Having
moved in last year, we phoned them to arrange transfer of the
wayleave for some poles, and asked about the tree clearance. A
surveyor was here in days, and went a funny colour - the lines had
allegedly been inspected a couple of years previously, but clearly
not particularly well...

They aim for five metres clearance from 11kv lines, and 3m from 230v,
but if the landowner is unwilling to co-operate they can get a court
order granting them access and rights to clear 3m from 11kv and 1m
from 230v. And that's horizontal distance as well as vertical.
Anything that's further than that but may pose a risk should it fall
will be glared at, too.

They take this very seriously indeed...

However, as you have seen, what they want to achieve and what actually
happens are not necessarily the same thing. it would need a much higher
level of inspection and more tree lopping teams, to achieve the target
of removing *all* trees that might pose a risk. We couldn't do that as
a nationalised industry, at a time when we were looking for ways to
spend money, so that we didn't break the 2% profit cap.

You mean that even with a lot of money to spend, it wasn't possible to
spend it fast enough? Did the notion of price reductions to customers
not occur to anyone?

Just the thought that crossed my mind!

Avpx

--
The reaper does not listen to the harvest.
(Reaper Man)
18:30:01 up 47 min, 6 users, load average: 0.47, 0.44, 0.47